Monday, June 18, 2012

Do you believe in 'American exceptionalism'?

Bill Maher is once again in the metaphorical Fox News crosshairs for deriding the idea that "we are the super-duper star-spangled best country ever. And if we had any flaw, it's that we make other countries feel bad because our awesomeness is so overwhelming.

I happen to think there is a lot to admire and be proud of about the United States -- the freedoms it offers, the opportunities it provides -- and that it's practically a patriotic duty to criticize the ways in which it falls and has fallen short of its stated ideals.

It's unclear to me where the term "exceptionalism" gets you other than into some jingoistic corner where you find it hard to reconcile this nation's failings with its aspirations and hard to accept that, in some ways, some other nations have better ideas (or better implemenation) that we could learn from.

"Exceptional" carries with it a whiff of "unique," though the dictionary definition reminds us that the sense is "very unsusual," though generally with a far more positive feel than, say, "aberrant," "anomolous" or even "unique."

To say that Derrick Rose is an exceptional basketball player is to say that he's very, very good -- among the best in the world when not injured -- but it's to to say that he's the best who ever played the game (still, arguably, Michael Jordan).

But what do we -- what do you -- mean when you say that the United States is an exceptional nation?

Posted at 03:12:55 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I am probably mistaken on this, but I thought the meaning for American Exceptionalism was not based on the concept that the United States was exceptional in the sense of extraordinary, but rather it stood for the other meaning of exceptional, in that the United States should be excluded from all other standards by which we judge nations. The nation is beyond being judged.

Which is why when you hear talk of American Exceptionalism the talk is generally in terms of that the country is should not be criticised.

According to Wikipedia: "American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is different from other countries in that it has a specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy."

I think we need to ask the Middle East, South Asia, the Southern Cone, etc. how well we've been doing at spreading liberty and democracy.

And the funny (not ha ha) thing is, like the alleged frog in the boiling water, we don't even seem to realize how much of our own liberty and democracy we've given up here at home because of what we're spreading abroad. If you're old enough to remember 15-20 years ago, ask yourself what you would have said if someone had told you back then that you'd have to carry your "papers" to get into downtown buildings, get a naked screening and/or full-body pat down to get on an airplane, and that you'd have to allow your bag to be searched just to ride public transportation. You probably would have gotten rather huffy and mentioned something about the Fourth Amendment. At least, I used to be that naive.

In academic circles, the phrase meant that US history followed different arcs than Europe's did. Despite having a industrial revolution at about the same time, we did not have the same rise of labor unions and attendant political power (we didn't -- just compare the US with Europe today). The phrase uses "exceptional" in the sense of "different" -- an exception to the rule, without any moral or judgmental quality..
In politics, the phrase is often used to mean that we're really terrific -- exceptional in the sense of better than. It is deployed along the lines of manifest destiny -- to suggest that the US is not only the best place on earth, but that we are obligated to bring our greatness to others who may not appreciate it now.

I always viewed it as our form of government adopted by the framers wedded with laissez-faire economics. An untried experiment in democracy and individualism. Right or wrong that's my view. I don't give it a lot of thought. I take pride in our country but let's not confuse exceptionalism with moral perfection or selectively forgetting the times we haver misused our power and position of leadership.

I always felt American exceptionalism should be similar to the Golden Rule. Respect others rights and freedoms no matter how they confict with our own. Especially the right of the individual over the majority. Sadly, this ideal seems to be very out of favor the past 10 years or so.

Others have turned this into some kind of superior race type of ideal. And we've seen where that train of thought has led in the past. What's worse is that lately, in this country, one side claims they want to take America back. Back from whom? As if they're superior to the minorities they're trying to push restrictive laws upon to gain more power, while denying them legal rights.

I understand American Exceptionalism to mean that America is unique among countries thanks to a) the democratic experiment, and b) our oft-stated mission to spread freedom and democracy around the world. Of course, we are not the world's only democracy, nor were we the first, but we *are* a democratic superpower - even a democratic empire - and that strikes me as unique. Sure, we've had our share of mishaps abroad, but as democratic superpowers go, I think Americans can rightfully be proud of our postwar impact on Germany, Japan, South Korea, even Vietnam, and very possibly Iraq, at least compared to the imperial practices of Great Britain in places like India and South Africa. Personally, I also prefer our three branches of government / separation of powers approach to a parliamentary approach, and I feel like it sets us apart from other democracies.

Policy aside, I believe Americans are unique in that we are overwhelmingly not native to this land. 98% of us immigrated from somewhere, either very recently or comparatively recently. From our vantage point in 2012, even the colonists are relative newcomers. I think the fact that we all come from elsewhere accounts for the value we place on risk-taking, individualism, and focusing on the future. It takes a special kind of person to leave his home (and sometimes his family) behind. Some of these "special" traits are admirable and some are not. Plenty of people have come to America seeking freedom from tyrants and the opportunity for a decent, modest, sustainable life. On the other hand, some people have interpreted "freedom" as the right to do whatever they darn well please and have seen "opportunity" as a means of getting rich quick.

Lastly, regarding Michael Jordan. He certainly embodies Basketball Exceptionalism, but I don't remember him ever referring to himself as the greatest player of all time. In fact, I remember him doing a commercial where he recalled all the shots he had missed, all the potential game-winners he had clanked off the rim, and assorted other failures, and noted that it was those things that drove him to succeed. In my experience, truly exceptional people spend so much time pursuing excellence that they don't have much time left over to brag about it. Perhaps therein lies a lesson for America.

Although I can understand why many conservatives hate Bill Maher, if they listened a little closer to him, they'd find that he is endlessly critical of the Democrats, for one, and that he shares a lot of goals with them (cutting gov't spending, destroying al Qaeda, a strong support for the military, etc.) if perhaps not the means.

Part of the point he was making the other night, IIRC, is one that CoS conservatives often make. First he asserted that our students are too far down the list compared to many other countries in important categories of achievement like math, science, etc.--but they are first in self-confidence. In other words, they think they're winning at the same time they're getting owned by 15 or 17 other countries.

He then argued that too many college graduates have degrees that simply are not economically viable (performing arts, etc.); are as a result moving back home with their parents rather than finding jobs, and that our competitors are creating the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals.

It's one thing to not be exceptional, and know it. At least then you're motivated to adjust and get back in the game. It's quite another to not be exceptional and believe we are. We get our ass kicked even faster that way.

You can love your country, think its exceptional in many ways, which it is, while acknowledging its flaws. In fact if you really love your country--I think that's your responsibility.

@Kip - You have to be careful with those lists of education system rankings. India is ahead of the US, yet 70% of India is illiterate. They typically don't count the 70%, so it is like comparing magnate schools to public schools that accept all.

My idea of our exceptionalism is that we are the only military superpower, among two or three in the world, that can be expected to act morally, or at least without ideas of imperialism or conquest. Who the hell else could have solved Bosnia? Broken the Soviet Union tyranny? We are the only actual world cops whom you would actually call if you hoped for rescue. I know that leftists like Dienne disagree with that notion, thinking that Bush and even Obama are trying to conquer the world, but in most of the world, that is how people view us. I don't think of us as superior, but apart from Canada--which makes life pretty easy for those who can get in--which nation in the world is the destination of choice for those who want to make a better life?

I'm surprised that Maher didn't get more attention for calling Mormonism a "stupid religion". I don't recall him ever calling Judism or Islam a stupid religion. (And yes, I suffered through all 100 minutes of "Religulous")

ZORN REPLY -- In general, Tom, some questions:
1. Are there any beliefs in any religion that in your view deserve to be called "stupid"? Assuming you disagree with certain views and beliefs in certain (logically most) religions, what negative adjectives do you think are fair to apply to those beliefs?

2. Are there any beliefs at all, even outside the realm of religions, that in your view are "stupid"? If so, and if you decline to assign that adjective to any religious belief, why does religious belief deserve an exemption from criticism?

AE is the fact that the country was founded on ideas and principles, unlike most other nations (founded essentially as a result of tribalism). As imperfect as the USA is (progressives, you tried utopianism with eugenics-did not turn out very well), Lincoln pegged us perfectly as the "last best hope on earth".

"We are the only military superpower, among two or three in the world, that can be expected to act morally, or at least without ideas of imperialism or conquest *** in most of the world, that is how people view us."

"@Kip - You have to be careful with those lists of education system rankings. India is ahead of the US, yet 70% of India is illiterate. They typically don't count the 70%, so it is like comparing magnate schools to public schools that accept all."

Point taken, but Maher's points are valid as well.

And by the way, quotidian, I did not intend to insult you personally but to point out that the gradual substitution of "liberal" with "leftist" (which connotes illegal subversion and violence--neither of which I've ever seen a Dienne post advocate) is no different than labeling any conservative a reactionary or a fascist. It's simply rhetoric, and it's not true.

ZORN REPLY -- In general, Tom, some questions:
1. Are there any beliefs in any religion that in your view deserve to be called "stupid"? Assuming you disagree with certain views and beliefs in certain (logically most) religions, what negative adjectives do you think are fair to apply to those beliefs?

2. Are there any beliefs at all, even outside the realm of religions, that in your view are "stupid"? If so, and if you decline to assign that adjective to any religious belief, why does religious belief deserve an exemption from criticism?

Well,

1. Are there any aspects about some religions that I think are stupid or silly? Of course. But that doesn't mean I should necessarily say that in public or on TV for the nation to hear. It seems that some religions are OK to criticize (Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, evangelical Christianity), and some religions are not OK to criticize (Judaism, Islam). They even have a special word (Islamophobe) to discourage/threaten critics. And Maher wasn't criticizing just a set of beliefs, he was slamming an entire religion and its followers.

Again, I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but it seems there are double standards here.

Parts of Canada think that the US is a war monger too, and have felt that way for the last 30 years. And they are our closest friend and biggest trading partner. What they lack in the courage of their convictions, they gain in trading with us.

I actually agree with Dienne about Americans thinking that the rest of the world is grateful for what the US did in WWII.

" We are the only actual world cops whom you would actually call if you hoped for rescue."

Yeah, and like the local cops, except when you actually need 'em, most people want to keep their distance. And complain when they don't show up fast enough, or when they accidentally smack the wrong guy upside the head.

Don't you remember your civics class political spectrum? Fascists to the right, Communists to the left. The 2 despised each other - it was what caused some otherwise sensible and moderate Americans to support Hitler - in fact, it was the monied class that politely thought Hitler was doing the world a favor by throwing out the Communists, gypsies, etc.

And just as a matter of fairness, you can't link liberals/progressives/leftists with BOTH Fascism AND Communism. It seems unsportsmanlike.

@MrJM,
The U.S. is such a brutal ever expanding Imperialistic power it had to be dragged into world War I. It had to be dragged into World war II. It rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan. It reformed and rebuilt Japan. Tthe U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. After the fall of the Soviet Empire the Eastern European countries were begging to join Nato an Imperialistic arm of the U. S. what dopes.

Two weeks ago Viet Nam made overtures to the U.S Navy about using Cam Ranh Bay as a port of call for the Seventh Fleet. Why would they want the Evil Imperialistic U.S. Navy in the finest deep water port in Asia?

Funny Japan no longer calls for the U.S. to abandon its Imperialistic military base in Okinawa. Wonder why.

Two Iraqi Wars and soon no U.S. troops in country. Vast oil contracts awarded to non U. S. companies. U.S. controls none of the iraqi oil fields. Some Imperial Power.

I'll leave the last word to Victor davis Hanson comparing the American "empire" to other empires he stated,: "We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead we accept the risk of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul."

lexi, the quote you mined from my supplied quote clearly states that people in Japan DON'T "want us in their midst." They want us somewhere else -- like out of their country. (Look up the phrase NIMBY.)

In fact, in every foreign country where the U.S. has a military base, you will find significant civilian expression to have us removed, because the citizens tend to not want us there.

Do you have any evidence to support your position, such as a formal request from any country to have us build a military base in their country? Something in the last 5 years (before you bring up a link to the 1940s)?

In 2006 an agreement was reached to begin moving marines out of Futenna to Guam with an eye towards closing the base. the U.S. wanted to move to henokaha a less populated part of the island the islanders wanted closed and gone. The Japanese Democratic Party government first elected in 2009 cause its ties with Washington to be strained after the election after then-Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama sought to keep his campaign promise to move the Futenma base off the island. He wanted to close the base and move it off the island. In 2011 we see this reversal : Under pressure from the U.S. to proceed with the original plan, and unable to find an alternative host for Futenma elsewhere in Japan, the Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, has toed the Washington line since becoming leader just over a year ago.

His Democratic party's erstwhile vision of a foreign policy less beholden to the U.S. has been abandoned in the face of perennial tensions on the Korean peninsula, uncertainty over an expected dynastic transfer of power in North Korea and an increasingly assertive China.

The Okinawa relocation is part of a wider realignment of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific that could affect troop numbers in Japan, South Korea and Guam.

That consolidation will proceed against a backdrop of increasing threats to regional security.

Underlining the risks of even partial U.S. disengagement from the region, a recent report by the Lowy Institute in Australia said a rise in the number of incidents involving the Chinese navy in the crowded sea lanes of Indo-Pacific Asia could draw in the U.S. and Japan, and even lead to war.

this is in line with what i said, the Japanese government wanted to accede to the wishes of Okinawa, close and relocate the Futenna base off Island. Let me know when this happens will you? The Japanese governmement is calling again for shared burden and has backed off this positon. I find nothing new in your links.

U.s. Military bases constructed or in process of being constructed in past 5 years.

Vincenza Italy, New Air Base after three years of demonstrations, and public debate.

Chile- new military base

Argentina- new military base

Honduras- new miltary base for drug interdiction

Australia- ewill allow 500 marines to be stationed there and use of Cocos Islands for spy plane base.

Georgia the Repupublic- military bases

Bahrain- additional stationing U.S. troops will reqire base expansion

Romania military base

Poland- miltary base

Philipines yes they formerly had U.S. bases but kicked our asses out the door early 90's this a big 180 allowing use of Subic Bay and Clark Field. guess fear of Chinese trumps Evil U.S. Imperialism. Also constructing Naval facility and military base on Spratley Islands.

@Xuuths you said "They want us somewhere else -- like out of their country."

I have no clue how you drew that conclusion from this statement:

"The majority of Japanese people, however, want U.S. bases somewhere in Japan"

I've finally figured out that you won't allow facts or logic to get in the way of your opinion so I will concede and tell the world that you, Xuuths, are absolutely correct and I, lexi, am 100% wrong: The Japanese people do not want the US to have bases in their country even though the source you provided states: "The majority of Japanese people, however, want U.S. bases somewhere in Japan"

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.